Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

Did you somehow miss that you are describing the results of evolutionary processes?

Wow, you obviously totally lack understanding of your own theory. Don't look now, but...

You're more than a little befuddled. The science and theory of evolution has progressed substantially as the means and methods of examination and study have advanced. The supporting science has only gotten better defined and better understood. It only makes sense for that to continue.

It's obvious that your claims to gods and supernaturalism are becoming more marginalized and more out of touch.

New discoveries are what's making your theory even more rediculous.

 

[Youwerecreated]

False! As with all these silly videos promoting religion, the underlying assumption is "the gods didi it". Attempting to force even inconsequential amounts of data to fit a preconceived view is dishonest. Religious claims to supernaturalism is not science.

Only because they lack faith in a creator while closing their minds to the evidence.

since you have no evidence of a creator your statement is false.
as always you have shown no quantifiable evidence for either claim.

No,I have seen evidence that makes it reasonable to believe in a creator. It comes down to who is properly interpreting evidence. That is no contest you have no evidence for your theory about life.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The process of subjecting children to complex initiation rituals before they are able to critically assess the event is seen by Dawkins and other critics of religion as cruel.

evolution is never taught that way, the information is presented and the students decided for themselves, unlike religion where the the believe this or you're going to hell rule applies.

I have to disagree. Go watch Expelled. Darwinism is religiously taught and any one who objects is immediately silenced. Children are not taught to think about opposing viewpoints or question the evidence when it comes to their Darwinian indoctrination in the Nanny State Public schools. They are tricked with old lies even though new evidence abounds and immersed in assumptive language at every turn.

bullshit [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUB8Mv1SaKQ]Jesus in my School - YouTube[/ame]

Richard Sternberg
Summary
Expelled claims that Sternberg was “terrorized” and that “his life was nearly ruined” when, in 2004, as editor of Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, he published a pro-intelligent design article by Stephen C. Meyer. However, there is no evidence of either terrorism or ruination. Before publishing the paper, Sternberg worked for the National Institutes of Health at the National Center for Biotechnology Information (GenBank) and was an unpaid Research Associate – not an employee – at the Smithsonian. He was the voluntary, unpaid editor of PBSW (small academic journals rarely pay editors), and had given notice of his resignation as editor six months before the Meyer article was published. After the Meyer incident, he remained an employee of NIH and his unpaid position at the Smithsonian was extended in 2006, although he has not shown up there in years. At no time was any aspect of his pay or working conditions at NIH affected. It is difficult to see how his life “was nearly ruined” when nothing serious happened to him. He was never even disciplined for legitimate violations of policy of PBSW or Smithsonian policy.

The Claim
“The paper ignited a firestorm of controversy merely because it suggested intelligent design might be able to explain how life began.” (Ben Stein, Expelled)

The Facts
Expelled doesn’t even get the paper’s subject right. The paper was not about how life began; it was about the Cambrian Explosion, which occurred about three billion years later. The greater error is claiming that the discussion of ID generated the controversy. There was an understandable outcry from members of the Biological Society of Washington over the embarrassing publication of what they recognized as poorly-written, inaccurate science in their journal. The argument presented in the Meyer paper had previously been reviewed and rejected by scientists. Seeing this shoddy science in their journal indeed “ignited a firestorm”, but not for the reasons given in Expelled. For more on why the paper was bad science, see the review published on the Panda’s Thumb blog and the review in the Palaeontological Society Newsletter.

Expelled Exposed: Why Expelled Flunks » Richard Sternberg

The cambrian explosion is definitely evidence against the theory of evolution. No Organism can survive that many mutations or DNA information change in that short in that short span.

It better supports a creation event where the diversity of life appeared suddenly. Low change over time did not happen with the cambrian explosion.

 

[daws101]

I say YAHWEH created all things and gave organisms the limited ability to adapt. You have been presented with plenty of evidence for design with your side having no explanation for complexity.

Intelligence creates and design,we know of no natural method of the beginning of life. We know cars ,homes,and communication systems were designed by a intelligent mind.

You can make any claim you wish regarding your religious views. I'm also free to advise that your claims are totally unsupported and substanceless.

I've learned to expect dishonesty from Christian fundies and in concert with those expectations I have to advise that you have offered no evidence of anything. Posting canned YouTube videos is pointless as we know that Christian fundies have an agenda of pressing Christianity, not truth or facts.

And yes, mechanical components show design intent. Nothing in nature shows design. Everything in nature shows clear evidence of fitness for survival. Your silly comparisons are the standard boilerplate nonsense on Christian fundie websites. Your claims are neither original nor true. They're just tired cliches used by Christian creationists for lack of a defendable argument.

You can't prove my views wrong concerning God, Nor my views in science.

really? it's all ready been done.
you have no empirical proof of god only the belief.
belief proves nothing but belief
there is no evidence that god said or did anything you give him credit for.
since your views on science are based a false premise I.E. (god did it) willful ignorance, hubris and a completely bias pov.
they cannot be considered valid.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I certainly have every reason to accept that Zeus had a hand in creating creatures in the wild. What can you offer to suggest that it was your gods who created wild creatures?

And which ones? I want a list.

Baby steps Hollie but his name is not zeus.

and why not? since all references to a god or gods are subjective not objective.

When I walk up to a person I want to know his or her real name. The believers have pretty much rejected zeus and apollo.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You can make any claim you wish regarding your religious views. I'm also free to advise that your claims are totally unsupported and substanceless.

I've learned to expect dishonesty from Christian fundies and in concert with those expectations I have to advise that you have offered no evidence of anything. Posting canned YouTube videos is pointless as we know that Christian fundies have an agenda of pressing Christianity, not truth or facts.

And yes, mechanical components show design intent. Nothing in nature shows design. Everything in nature shows clear evidence of fitness for survival. Your silly comparisons are the standard boilerplate nonsense on Christian fundie websites. Your claims are neither original nor true. They're just tired cliches used by Christian creationists for lack of a defendable argument.

You can't prove my views wrong concerning God, Nor my views in science.

really? it's all ready been done.
you have no empirical proof of god only the belief.
belief proves nothing but belief
there is no evidence that god said or did anything you give him credit for.
since your views on science are based a false premise I.E. (god did it) willful ignorance, hubris and a completely bias pov.
they cannot be considered valid.

Really, molecular machines are not empirical evidence ? The cell is not empirical evidence ? the sun,moon,and our atmosphere is not empirical evidence ? I can point to many more empirical evidences but this is enough.

 

[daws101]

Only because they lack faith in a creator while closing their minds to the evidence.

since you have no evidence of a creator your statement is false.
as always you have shown no quantifiable evidence for either claim.

No,I have seen evidence that makes it reasonable to believe in a creator. It comes down to who is properly interpreting evidence. That is no contest you have no evidence for your theory about life.

what evidence might that be?..... chicken *******
proper interpretation of evidence is only possible when objectivity is present.
a skill or quality you have no concept of .
once again belief is not proof.

rea·son·able adj \ˈrēz-nə-bəl, ˈrē-zən-ə-bəl\
Definition of REASONABLE
1a : being in accordance with reason <a reasonable theory> b : not extreme or excessive <reasonable requests> c : moderate, fair <a reasonable chance> <a reasonable price> d : inexpensive
2a : having the faculty of reason b : possessing sound judgment <a reasonable man.

nothing you have posted meets the definition posted above.

 

[daws101]

You can't prove my views wrong concerning God, Nor my views in science.

really? it's all ready been done.
you have no empirical proof of god only the belief.
belief proves nothing but belief
there is no evidence that god said or did anything you give him credit for.
since your views on science are based a false premise I.E. (god did it) willful ignorance, hubris and a completely bias pov.
they cannot be considered valid.

Really, molecular machines are not empirical evidence ? The cell is not empirical evidence ? the sun,moon,and our atmosphere is not empirical evidence ? I can point to many more empirical evidences but this is enough.

they are empirical only in that they exist. it is not however proof that they were caused to happen by a god for a purpose. no matter how much you wish they were.

 

[daws101]

I have to disagree. Go watch Expelled. Darwinism is religiously taught and any one who objects is immediately silenced. Children are not taught to think about opposing viewpoints or question the evidence when it comes to their Darwinian indoctrination in the Nanny State Public schools. They are tricked with old lies even though new evidence abounds and immersed in assumptive language at every turn.

bullshit [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUB8Mv1SaKQ]Jesus in my School - YouTube[/ame]

Richard Sternberg
Summary
Expelled claims that Sternberg was “terrorized” and that “his life was nearly ruined” when, in 2004, as editor of Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, he published a pro-intelligent design article by Stephen C. Meyer. However, there is no evidence of either terrorism or ruination. Before publishing the paper, Sternberg worked for the National Institutes of Health at the National Center for Biotechnology Information (GenBank) and was an unpaid Research Associate – not an employee – at the Smithsonian. He was the voluntary, unpaid editor of PBSW (small academic journals rarely pay editors), and had given notice of his resignation as editor six months before the Meyer article was published. After the Meyer incident, he remained an employee of NIH and his unpaid position at the Smithsonian was extended in 2006, although he has not shown up there in years. At no time was any aspect of his pay or working conditions at NIH affected. It is difficult to see how his life “was nearly ruined” when nothing serious happened to him. He was never even disciplined for legitimate violations of policy of PBSW or Smithsonian policy.

The Claim
“The paper ignited a firestorm of controversy merely because it suggested intelligent design might be able to explain how life began.” (Ben Stein, Expelled)

The Facts
Expelled doesn’t even get the paper’s subject right. The paper was not about how life began; it was about the Cambrian Explosion, which occurred about three billion years later. The greater error is claiming that the discussion of ID generated the controversy. There was an understandable outcry from members of the Biological Society of Washington over the embarrassing publication of what they recognized as poorly-written, inaccurate science in their journal. The argument presented in the Meyer paper had previously been reviewed and rejected by scientists. Seeing this shoddy science in their journal indeed “ignited a firestorm”, but not for the reasons given in Expelled. For more on why the paper was bad science, see the review published on the Panda’s Thumb blog and the review in the Palaeontological Society Newsletter.

Expelled Exposed: Why Expelled Flunks » Richard Sternberg

The cambrian explosion is definitely evidence against the theory of evolution. No Organism can survive that many mutations or DNA information change in that short in that short span.

It better supports a creation event where the diversity of life appeared suddenly. Low change over time did not happen with the cambrian explosion.

bullshit :I have heard creationists claim on multiple occasions that the Cambrian explosion disproves evolution. For example, Lee Strobel in this video claims that the all the phyla appeared at once, independently, and therefore they were created.

First we have to understand what the Cambrian explosion is. The Cambrian explosion occurred about 530 million years ago and lasted around 80 million years. (EDIT: Quasar brought to my attention that the exact length of time of the Cambrian explosion is under dispute. However, the lowest estimate is still around 5 million years.) During this time, many of the phyla or general body types first appeared for animals. Before the Cambrian explosion, very few fossils exist of multicellular creatures, and life appears to be mainly composed of single cell organisms.

However, not all phyla made their appearance during the Cambrian explosion. Land-based life such as flowers, ferns, etc... developed much later.

While fossils from the Cambrian explosion and Precambrian are rare, evidence exists that all these body types did not evolve completely independently. All animal phyla, for example, share many common characteristics. They are all triploblastic (the embryo forms in 3 layers), bilatteral (have left and right halves) coelomates (have internal body organs). Therefore, evidence of common ancestry is suggested in the formation of these early phyla groups.

More importantly, geologists found fossils predating the Cambrian explosion of burrows which require a digging mechanism and multicellular creatures. So the idea that creatures found in the Cambrian explosion arose without precedent is simply untrue. Life had been developing into more complex, multicellular forms in the Precambrian.

The easiest way to explain the Cambrian explosion is through the theory of punctuated equilibrium. According to the theory, the evolution of most sexually-reproducing creatures occurs in short bursts followed by long stretches of few changes.

While the theory of punctuated equilibrium may have been over-sold, the idea that changes to the environment spur evolutionary development is well understood by biologists. After all, the information for evolution comes from the environment - change the environment, change the creature.

It just so happens that the amount of oxygen in Earth's atmosphere dramatically rose during the time of the Cambrian explosion, giving animals more oxygen to work with. This extra oxygen could have enabled creatures to grow larger than ever before without suffocating their body parts due to a lack of oxygen.

So while much remains to be learned about the Cambrian explosion, the idea that it somehow proves that omnipotent deity magically created life on Earth is a very much unwarranted.
Debunked by Debunkey Monkey at 8:02 PM

The Debunkey Monkey: Debunking Cambrian Explosion Myths

btw my post was about the lies told in the film expelled, but as always you missed the point completely...and proved wrong.

 

[Hollie]

I say YAHWEH created all things and gave organisms the limited ability to adapt. You have been presented with plenty of evidence for design with your side having no explanation for complexity.

Intelligence creates and design,we know of no natural method of the beginning of life. We know cars ,homes,and communication systems were designed by a intelligent mind.

You can make any claim you wish regarding your religious views. I'm also free to advise that your claims are totally unsupported and substanceless.

I've learned to expect dishonesty from Christian fundies and in concert with those expectations I have to advise that you have offered no evidence of anything. Posting canned YouTube videos is pointless as we know that Christian fundies have an agenda of pressing Christianity, not truth or facts.

And yes, mechanical components show design intent. Nothing in nature shows design. Everything in nature shows clear evidence of fitness for survival. Your silly comparisons are the standard boilerplate nonsense on Christian fundie websites. Your claims are neither original nor true. They're just tired cliches used by Christian creationists for lack of a defendable argument.

You can't prove my views wrong concerning God, Nor my views in science.

That's a nonsense claim. You're the one making claims to gods and supernaturalism. You are the one accepting the burden of proof for your claims.

Your gods are not true until disproved. That's ridiculous. Your "disprove it" claim is the last gasp of a dying argument. Absent any evidence to prove your gods, you demand others disprove them.

So yes, using your standards (such as they are), I have disproof of your gods. Prove I don't.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Do you believe that nothing collided with nothing and created something?
Does E=mc2?

 

[daws101]

Do you believe that nothing collided with nothing and created something?
Does E=mc2?

do you always intentionaly mis paraphrase the BB theory.
it never states some thing from nothing.
what it does state is ALL THE MATTER IN THE UNIVERSE WAS COMPACTED IN TO AN INFINITESIMALLY SMALL SPACE .
EITHER WAY BELIEVING IS NOT PROOF.
NEVER HAS BEEN NEVER WILL BE

 

[Youwerecreated]

since you have no evidence of a creator your statement is false.
as always you have shown no quantifiable evidence for either claim.

No,I have seen evidence that makes it reasonable to believe in a creator. It comes down to who is properly interpreting evidence. That is no contest you have no evidence for your theory about life.

what evidence might that be?..... chicken *******
proper interpretation of evidence is only possible when objectivity is present.
a skill or quality you have no concept of .
once again belief is not proof.

rea·son·able adj \&#712;r&#275;z-n&#601;-b&#601;l, &#712;r&#275;-z&#601;n-&#601;-b&#601;l\
Definition of REASONABLE
1a : being in accordance with reason <a reasonable theory> b : not extreme or excessive <reasonable requests> c : moderate, fair <a reasonable chance> <a reasonable price> d : inexpensive
2a : having the faculty of reason b : possessing sound judgment <a reasonable man.

nothing you have posted meets the definition posted above.

Already answered you many times and you still don't get it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

really? it's all ready been done.
you have no empirical proof of god only the belief.
belief proves nothing but belief
there is no evidence that god said or did anything you give him credit for.
since your views on science are based a false premise I.E. (god did it) willful ignorance, hubris and a completely bias pov.
they cannot be considered valid.

Really, molecular machines are not empirical evidence ? The cell is not empirical evidence ? the sun,moon,and our atmosphere is not empirical evidence ? I can point to many more empirical evidences but this is enough.

they are empirical only in that they exist. it is not however proof that they were caused to happen by a god for a purpose. no matter how much you wish they were.

No and it does not prove they came into existence on their own. I interpret this evidence as having been designed your side is still looking for an answer.

 

[Youwerecreated]

bullshit Jesus in my School - YouTube

Richard Sternberg
Summary
Expelled claims that Sternberg was &#8220;terrorized&#8221; and that &#8220;his life was nearly ruined&#8221; when, in 2004, as editor of Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, he published a pro-intelligent design article by Stephen C. Meyer. However, there is no evidence of either terrorism or ruination. Before publishing the paper, Sternberg worked for the National Institutes of Health at the National Center for Biotechnology Information (GenBank) and was an unpaid Research Associate &#8211; not an employee &#8211; at the Smithsonian. He was the voluntary, unpaid editor of PBSW (small academic journals rarely pay editors), and had given notice of his resignation as editor six months before the Meyer article was published. After the Meyer incident, he remained an employee of NIH and his unpaid position at the Smithsonian was extended in 2006, although he has not shown up there in years. At no time was any aspect of his pay or working conditions at NIH affected. It is difficult to see how his life &#8220;was nearly ruined&#8221; when nothing serious happened to him. He was never even disciplined for legitimate violations of policy of PBSW or Smithsonian policy.

The Claim
&#8220;The paper ignited a firestorm of controversy merely because it suggested intelligent design might be able to explain how life began.&#8221; (Ben Stein, Expelled)

The Facts
Expelled doesn&#8217;t even get the paper&#8217;s subject right. The paper was not about how life began; it was about the Cambrian Explosion, which occurred about three billion years later. The greater error is claiming that the discussion of ID generated the controversy. There was an understandable outcry from members of the Biological Society of Washington over the embarrassing publication of what they recognized as poorly-written, inaccurate science in their journal. The argument presented in the Meyer paper had previously been reviewed and rejected by scientists. Seeing this shoddy science in their journal indeed &#8220;ignited a firestorm&#8221;, but not for the reasons given in Expelled. For more on why the paper was bad science, see the review published on the Panda&#8217;s Thumb blog and the review in the Palaeontological Society Newsletter.

Expelled Exposed: Why Expelled Flunks » Richard Sternberg

The cambrian explosion is definitely evidence against the theory of evolution. No Organism can survive that many mutations or DNA information change in that short in that short span.

It better supports a creation event where the diversity of life appeared suddenly. Low change over time did not happen with the cambrian explosion.

bullshit :I have heard creationists claim on multiple occasions that the Cambrian explosion disproves evolution. For example, Lee Strobel in this video claims that the all the phyla appeared at once, independently, and therefore they were created.

First we have to understand what the Cambrian explosion is. The Cambrian explosion occurred about 530 million years ago and lasted around 80 million years. (EDIT: Quasar brought to my attention that the exact length of time of the Cambrian explosion is under dispute. However, the lowest estimate is still around 5 million years.) During this time, many of the phyla or general body types first appeared for animals. Before the Cambrian explosion, very few fossils exist of multicellular creatures, and life appears to be mainly composed of single cell organisms.

However, not all phyla made their appearance during the Cambrian explosion. Land-based life such as flowers, ferns, etc... developed much later.

While fossils from the Cambrian explosion and Precambrian are rare, evidence exists that all these body types did not evolve completely independently. All animal phyla, for example, share many common characteristics. They are all triploblastic (the embryo forms in 3 layers), bilatteral (have left and right halves) coelomates (have internal body organs). Therefore, evidence of common ancestry is suggested in the formation of these early phyla groups.

More importantly, geologists found fossils predating the Cambrian explosion of burrows which require a digging mechanism and multicellular creatures. So the idea that creatures found in the Cambrian explosion arose without precedent is simply untrue. Life had been developing into more complex, multicellular forms in the Precambrian.

The easiest way to explain the Cambrian explosion is through the theory of punctuated equilibrium. According to the theory, the evolution of most sexually-reproducing creatures occurs in short bursts followed by long stretches of few changes.

While the theory of punctuated equilibrium may have been over-sold, the idea that changes to the environment spur evolutionary development is well understood by biologists. After all, the information for evolution comes from the environment - change the environment, change the creature.

It just so happens that the amount of oxygen in Earth's atmosphere dramatically rose during the time of the Cambrian explosion, giving animals more oxygen to work with. This extra oxygen could have enabled creatures to grow larger than ever before without suffocating their body parts due to a lack of oxygen.

So while much remains to be learned about the Cambrian explosion, the idea that it somehow proves that omnipotent deity magically created life on Earth is a very much unwarranted.
Debunked by Debunkey Monkey at 8:02 PM

The Debunkey Monkey: Debunking Cambrian Explosion Myths

btw my post was about the lies told in the film expelled, but as always you missed the point completely...and proved wrong.

The fairytale and myth is saying that rapid diversification of multicellular animal life appeared rapidly over millions of years through a natural process, No way Jose.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You can make any claim you wish regarding your religious views. I'm also free to advise that your claims are totally unsupported and substanceless.

I've learned to expect dishonesty from Christian fundies and in concert with those expectations I have to advise that you have offered no evidence of anything. Posting canned YouTube videos is pointless as we know that Christian fundies have an agenda of pressing Christianity, not truth or facts.

And yes, mechanical components show design intent. Nothing in nature shows design. Everything in nature shows clear evidence of fitness for survival. Your silly comparisons are the standard boilerplate nonsense on Christian fundie websites. Your claims are neither original nor true. They're just tired cliches used by Christian creationists for lack of a defendable argument.

You can't prove my views wrong concerning God, Nor my views in science.

That's a nonsense claim. You're the one making claims to gods and supernaturalism. You are the one accepting the burden of proof for your claims.

Your gods are not true until disproved. That's ridiculous. Your "disprove it" claim is the last gasp of a dying argument. Absent any evidence to prove your gods, you demand others disprove them.

So yes, using your standards (such as they are), I have disproof of your gods. Prove I don't.

So far you have not impressed me at all with anything dealing with science but nor has Daws.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Do you believe that nothing collided with nothing and created something?
Does E=mc2?

do you always intentionaly mis paraphrase the BB theory.
it never states some thing from nothing.
what it does state is ALL THE MATTER IN THE UNIVERSE WAS COMPACTED IN TO AN INFINITESIMALLY SMALL SPACE .
EITHER WAY BELIEVING IS NOT PROOF.
NEVER HAS BEEN NEVER WILL BE

Put your dunce hat on the universe had a beginning,that means time had a beginning.Motion is change in location over time. Space cannot exist without time, without time there is no space, and nothing for matter to exist in.

I love putting you in your place. So where did the matter come from since time did not exist ?

 

[Hollie]

Really, molecular machines are not empirical evidence ? The cell is not empirical evidence ? the sun,moon,and our atmosphere is not empirical evidence ? I can point to many more empirical evidences but this is enough.

they are empirical only in that they exist. it is not however proof that they were caused to happen by a god for a purpose. no matter how much you wish they were.

No and it does not prove they came into existence on their own. I interpret this evidence as having been designed your side is still looking for an answer.

Of course, your answer is "the gods did it". That is pure speculation and science has already made you gods obsolete. As time goes on the gods will be more and more superfluous when it comes to explainig the natural world.

Supernaturalism is not an answer for anything because it is ultimately lazy and dishonest. While it does relieve you of the burdensome task of having to make decisions and take responsibility for them, belief in gods is a religious claim and thus removes you from science claims. Appeals to the gods is pure speculation on your part. Even if we were to accept your undemonstrated claims of gods, it still gives us no solid reason to believe any supernatural causation is the result of your god(s) and not some other gods.

See? This is the risk you face when trying to twist religious traditions delineated in fundie dogma to fit the natural world. It demands mis-statements and speculation.

 

[Youwerecreated]

they are empirical only in that they exist. it is not however proof that they were caused to happen by a god for a purpose. no matter how much you wish they were.

No and it does not prove they came into existence on their own. I interpret this evidence as having been designed your side is still looking for an answer.

Of course, your answer is "the gods did it". That is pure speculation and science has already made you gods obsolete. As time goes on the gods will be more and more superfluous when it comes to explainig the natural world.

Supernaturalism is not an answer for anything because it is ultimately lazy and dishonest. While it does relieve you of the burdensome task of having to make decisions and take responsibility for them, belief in gods is a religious claim and thus removes you from science claims. Appeals to the gods is pure speculation on your part. Even if we were to accept your undemonstrated claims of gods, it still gives us no solid reason to believe any supernatural causation is the result of your god(s) and not some other gods.

See? This is the risk you face when trying to twist religious traditions delineated in fundie dogma to fit the natural world. It demands mis-statements and speculation.

I can't think of anyone able to design them here on this planet

 

[Hollie]

You can't prove my views wrong concerning God, Nor my views in science.

That's a nonsense claim. You're the one making claims to gods and supernaturalism. You are the one accepting the burden of proof for your claims.

Your gods are not true until disproved. That's ridiculous. Your "disprove it" claim is the last gasp of a dying argument. Absent any evidence to prove your gods, you demand others disprove them.

So yes, using your standards (such as they are), I have disproof of your gods. Prove I don't.

So far you have not impressed me at all with anything dealing with science but nor has Daws.

You have impressed me as only a run of the mill fundie.

I find it surprising just how little you know of religion and worse, just how little you understand of the sciences that explain the natural world.

The reality that most of us live in adheres consistently and rigorously to naturally caused and functioning mechanisms that we largely understand. We have no solid evidence or even circumstantial evidence of any gods or any supernatural realms. It’s important to remember that your gods are just the latest gods in a long line of human constructed gods. We have not one single verifiable piece of evidence that any of the asserted gods exist. What you have never even thought to grapple with is that even an argument stating there was proof of gods would defeat the requirement for pure faith entirely.

The fact is, a still youthful science that is exploring and discovering and the body of scientific evidence we already have shows more and more every day that gods aren’t even needed for reality to exist. Theories and suppositions of gods and supernaturalism are crumbling quickly under the light of scientific knowledge.